Search Results
Found 1 results
510(k) Data Aggregation
(109 days)
Fiber Disks and Blocks (TRINIA) are milling blanks composed of a multi-directional interlacing of fiberglass and resin in several layers. They are intended to be used solely by dental technicians and dentists for making copings, substructures, removable dentures, or frameworks for permanent and transitional anterior or posterior crowns, bridgework, and substructures that can be for either cemented or uncemented restorations (e.g. telescopic restorations).
TRINIA is a fiber machining disk block. It is made of layers of glass fibers kept together by epoxy resin. TRINIA products are designed for the manufacturing of non-metallic dental appliances. The dental appliance is machined either by a CAD/CAM machine or by using the copying technique. TRINIA already possesses the mechanical characteristics needed for producing these dental appliances; no curing is necessary at the dental lab to make the product function properly.
Here's an analysis of the provided text regarding the acceptance criteria and study for the TRINIA dental device:
1. Table of Acceptance Criteria and Reported Device Performance:
The document establishes acceptance criteria by demonstrating that TRINIA's physical properties and biocompatibility are comparable to or exceed those of the predicate device. For some tests, direct comparison to the predicate is available, while for others, the "acceptance criteria" can be inferred to be the reported result itself, as these values demonstrate the device's inherent mechanical and biological characteristics, which are deemed acceptable.
| Test Name | Acceptance Criteria (Predicate or Implicit) | Reported Device Performance (TRINIA) | Units |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flexural strength | ≥ 302 MPa (Predicate) | 393 | MPa (N/mm²) |
| Flexural strain at max stress | < 5.5% (Predicate - lower is better) | 2.7 | % |
| Flexural modulus of elasticity | ≥ 12.6 GPa (Predicate) | 18.8 | GPa |
| Tensile strength | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 169 | MPa (N/mm²) |
| Tensile modulus of elasticity | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 18.8 | GPa |
| Compression strength | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 347 | MPa (N/mm²) |
| Charpy impact | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 26 | KJ/m² |
| Rockwell hardness (R scale) | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 125 | |
| Barcol hardness | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 63 | |
| Shore hardness | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 92.5 | |
| Density / Specific gravity | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 1.68 | g/cm³ |
| Water absorption | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 0.03 | % |
| Short beam shear | Not Specified (Implicit: acceptable value) | 49 | N/mm² |
| Biocompatibility | |||
| Genotoxicity | Non-mutagenic (Standard) | Non-mutagenic | |
| Cytotoxicity | Non-cytotoxic (Standard) | Non-cytotoxic | |
| Irritation/Reactivity | Non-irritant (Standard) | Non-irritant | |
| Acute Systemic Toxicity | Non-toxic (Standard) | Non-toxic |
2. Sample Size Used for the Test Set and Data Provenance:
The document does not explicitly state the sample sizes used for each physical property test. It mentions that "Testing has been performed to the standards listed in the 'Description of the performance aspects' section." These standards (e.g., ISO 14125, ASTM D3039) typically prescribe specific sample sizes for their respective tests. Without direct access to the full test reports, the exact sample sizes are not known from this summary.
The data provenance is not explicitly stated in terms of country of origin but is implied to be from internal testing conducted by Bicon, LLC (USA-based company). The testing is retrospective, presenting results of already completed tests.
3. Number of Experts Used to Establish the Ground Truth for the Test Set and Qualifications of Those Experts:
This information is not applicable to this type of device and study. The "ground truth" for material properties is established by the standardized testing methods themselves, which produce objective, measurable results, not by expert consensus or interpretation in the same way clinical diagnostic studies do.
4. Adjudication Method for the Test Set:
This is not applicable. As the testing involves objective measurement of physical and chemical properties according to established standards, there is no need for an adjudication method by experts.
5. Multi-Reader Multi-Case (MRMC) Comparative Effectiveness Study:
No, an MRMC comparative effectiveness study was not done. This type of study is relevant for diagnostic imaging or interpretation tasks where human readers' performance is being evaluated and compared, often with and without AI assistance. This device is a dental material, not a diagnostic tool requiring human interpretation.
6. Standalone (Algorithm Only) Performance:
No, a standalone (algorithm only) performance study was not done. This concept is also not applicable to a physical dental material. The "performance" here refers to the material's physical and biological properties, not an algorithm's output.
7. Type of Ground Truth Used:
The "ground truth" for this device's evaluation is primarily based on objective, quantitative measurements obtained via recognized international and national standards (ISO, ASTM) for physical properties and biocompatibility testing criteria (ISO 10993 series). The values obtained from these tests serve as the "ground truth" against which the device's performance is assessed.
8. Sample Size for the Training Set:
This information is not applicable. This is a physical material, not an AI/ML algorithm that requires a "training set" in the conventional sense. The "development" or "design" of the material might involve experimentation and iteration, but this is distinct from an algorithm training process.
9. How the Ground Truth for the Training Set Was Established:
This information is not applicable for the same reasons as point 8.
Ask a specific question about this device
Page 1 of 1